“I will continue to be a teacher even in this impeachment court.”

That was the overwhelming sentiment that private prosecutor Atty. Armando Virgil Ligutan had in explaining his social media post which stirred controversy in the ongoing impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte.

The post that was brought to the impeachment court’s attention by directed Atty. Sheila Sison read: “A principle all lawyers and law students know by heart: Misleading questions are not allowed even on cross examination.”

Sison asserted that even with the lack of mention of names, it was directed at her fellow counsel Atty. Kristine Ferrer who claimed that the method of questioning was “allowed” in court proceedings.

Ferrer has since clarified that her answer pertained to leading instead of misleading questions as a matter that was authorized in court.

For Ligutan, however, the post was nothing personal, asserting that his statement was from the perspective of a teacher that sought to correct a mistake that was stated in a public proceeding rather than leaving the matter “unchecked.”

The lawyer said that while he had 16 years of litigation experience under his belt, he had been an educator for close to 20 years.

“Teaching, correcting mistakes has no particular place and no particular time. That’s why I made that post,” Ligutan explained.

“I wanted the students I left in Cebu and in Diliman, and all law students out there, to know that a teacher had heard that wrong statement in open court, and he is correcting that mistake,” he added.

Aside from clarifying his side of the issue, Ligutan questioned Sison over her belief that the post was “troubling” and made “in bad taste.”

He pointed out that the only troubling matter was that the defense counsel, rather than correcting their mistake, decided to call out a lawyer who did.

“What is troubling is we turn a correction of a mistake by one side into a shield from fair criticism for the other,” he expressed.

Ligutan further maintained that he did not violate any rules of court, particularly when it came to “sub judice” given that the post contained no information about the merits of the case.

To him, the post was simply an exercise of his rights, a fact that he maintained he did not surrender when he decided to participate in the ongoing constitutional process.

The lawyer also called out the defense for asserting that his post showed that he had no humility, arguing that the only individuals that had to practice humility was their opposing party.

“If there is somebody who needs to be reminded about humility, it is them, the defense. It is the oppose of humility, it is pride, not to admit a mistake, or worse call out someone who simply corrected that mistake,” he maintained.

After Ligutan finished his manifestation, impeachment court presiding officer Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero ruled that participating counsels–including lawmakers–were prohibited from making public statements and comments about the proceedings.

Escudero noted that a violation of the guideline would subject counsel to a show cause order while continued disobedience would result in a P30,000 fine to be issued.